HOUSE BILL NO. 20 "An Act requiring law enforcement agencies to send sexual assault examination kits for testing within six months after collection; and providing for an effective date." 1:30:48 PM Co-Chair Wilson asked if anyone had a question on the fiscal note regarding 9 new employees within the Department of Law. There were no questions from members. ^PRESENTATION: A LOOK-BACK IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM 1:31:12 PM JOHN SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, introduced the PowerPoint presentation: "A Look-back in Criminal Justice Reform." He had been asked to provide a review of criminal justice reform. He began with slide 2: Goals of Reform." He relayed that the quote on the slide was from the Alaska Criminal Justice Committee's 2015 annual report, dated February 1, 2016. He read from the slide: "Local legislative interest in these efforts were heightened by reports that the Alaska prison population was up 27 percent over the last decade, growing at a rate of 3 percent a year, and that recidivism remained high with nearly two out of three offenders returning to prison or jail within three years. Absent further reforms, it was projected that the number of persons incarcerated would soon exceed current hard-bed capacity." Mr. Skidmore indicated that the two goals of reform were to reduce Alaska's prison population and recidivism. There might have been some additional goals, but he mentioned the primary goals of the Criminal Justice Committee when they began. He wanted to take a look at the state's prison population to recall what the committee was reviewing at the time. Mr. Skidmore continued to slide 3: Projected Prison Population." He drew attention to the lower left-hand corner which was dated 2016 and copyrighted by The Pew Charitable Trusts. It was a slide the organization put together during the time SB 91 [Legislation passed in 2016 regarding criminal law and procedure and corrections) was being debated. The slide was frequently displayed that discussed Alaska's prison populations. He noted the historical line moving from actual to projected as of July 1, 2016. The trend line continued up during the period between July 1, 2014 through July 1, 2016. He highlighted the projected area and the line [in grey] which went up absent further reform. He suggested that with reform, the dotted blue line indicating the prison population would decline dramatically over the following 2 years from July 1, 2017 [2016] through July 1, 2018. He clarified that the state had been told that absent prison reform the prison population would increase. The following slide showed the actual prison population during the same period. 1:34:36 PM Mr. Skidmore discussed slide 4: "Actual Prison Population." The slide reflected the actual prison population in 2018. He relayed that the source of the data came from the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission's 2018 annual report. In general, there was a rise in prison population from 2010 to 2014. He highlighted that as of 2014 up to the time of implementation of SB 91 in mid 2016 there was a downward rather than an upward trend as projected. He reminded members that the previous slide was copywritten in 2016. He did not know why there was a difference in the numbers. One of the slides was from The Pew Charitable Trusts and the other was from the Alaska Justice Commission. He was merely pointing out what each reflected. The Department of Corrections provided the information for slide 4. Supposedly, according to The Pew Charitable Trust, the Department of Corrections provided the information for slide 3 as well. He concluded that the slide dramatically showed that the prison population was going down rather than up before the state had criminal justice reform. Mr. Skidmore drew attention to when SB 91 was implemented in the middle of 2016. He referred back to slide 3 which reflected the implementation of SB 91. He noted the drop which would take about a year to kick in. One year later, the drop that was predicted did not materialize. He indicated there was a slight decrease before the line trended up and swept back down slightly. He made a personal comment about him and his wife making lasagna together. He compared the layers of lasagna to the reform details. He would discuss what some of the reforms were that were supposed to bring the numbers down. Mr. Skidmore continued that after SB 91 was implemented there should have been a decrease in the line for sentencing, not property and drug offenses. He reported that every sentence was reduced, aside from those related to sex offences. The state had decriminalized the crime of driving with a suspended license which equaled 17 percent of the state's misdemeanor case load and carried mandatory minimums. Previously, the state had filed about 2500 cases which dropped to less than 500 cases per year with the implementation of SB 91. The legislation stipulated that for anyone awaiting sentencing, their sentence would be reduced. Drug crimes were dramatically changed in SB 91. Possession went from a Class C felony to a Class A misdemeanor. Not only did a drug possession move to a Class A misdemeanor, the first 2 offences came with zero jail time. Felony drug prosecutions had dropped prior to and after SB 91 resulting in a drop of filed cases by over 700 per year. Misdemeanors also went down. In 2017, the reforms related to probation and parole took effect. The legislation expanded the people that were eligible for discretionary parole. It was mandated that everyone that became eligible had a hearing. The presumptions were changed making it easier to be released on discretionary parole. In addition, a cap was placed on the type of sentences that were imposed for a violation of probation or parole. For example, a technical violation was currently capped at 3,5, or 10 days. All of the different reforms were supposed to make the prison population decrease. He indicated that slide 4 showed the actual prison population trend. 1:41:04 PM Vice-Chair Johnston asked about the misdemeanor drop in numbers and the timeframe relating to the implementation of SB 91. Mr. Skidmore responded that SB 91 passed in July 2016. He believed an immediate effective date applied to the sentencing. He reported that the other phases of the bill (probation and parole and pretrial) applied in 2017 and 2018. The sentencing and classifications happened almost immediately after the passage of SB 91 with an effective date of July 1, 2016. Vice-Chair Johnston noted the prison population increasing in 2013 and 2014 and decreasing slightly in 2015. She asked if it was accurate to say that the state's recession and drug crisis started in 2015. Mr. Skidmore responded that he could not speak to a recession. However, he reported that the opioid crisis started in 2014 or 2015. Vice-Chair Johnston suggested that with the passage of SB 91, the state began treating some aspects of the opioid problem differently - the state lowered the penalties for drug possession. Mr. Skidmore responded that the sentencing was reduced and that no jail time was required for the first 2 offences. Vice-Chair Johnston was correct. Vice-Chair Johnston wondered, taking into consideration the recession and the opioid problem, whether the prison population numbers would have looked different had SB 91 not passed. Mr. Skidmore responded that he could not speak to her scenario. He was before the committee to report what had been projected to happen and what actually happened. He only knew that prior to SB 91 the prisoner population was going down. He could not answer her question. Representative Knopp thought it would be interesting to have a comparison graph from the Department of Public Safety (DPS) regarding arrests within the same timeframe. Co-Chair Wilson indicated she would request the comparison from DPS. She queried whether something else was occurring, such as additional treatment availability, that would explain the downturn. She wondered if there was a way to look at the years from 2014-2016 to see if anything had changed that would account for the decrease. 1:46:38 PM Mr. Skidmore did not have a precise answer. He told of having a number of conversations during the timeframe with the Commissioner for Department of Corrections (DOC), Ron Taylor, who was trying to implement several changes within the department at the time. However, he did not know if the changes were the cause for the drop. He offered that because of what the committee was currently looking at, it would be appropriate to look to DOC for some answers. He could not recall any other major legislation having to do with the criminal justice system from 2014 to 2016. He mentioned SB 64 [Legislation passed in 2014 Short Title: Omnibus Crime/Corrections/Recidivism] that had passed a year prior that proposed significant changes, but no significant changes were made until the implementation of SB 91. Co-Chair Wilson commented that she had heard many people had been arrested but charges had not been brought forward. Representative Knopp suggested that the numbers be broken down by crime type when Co-Chair Wilson made her request to DOC. He asked Mr. Skidmore whether the changes and fixes in SB 54 and SB 55 were reflected in the chart. Mr. Skidmore replied that SB 54 was reflected on the chart in the last quarter of 2017. He recalled that SB 54 was enacted after the special session that occurred in October 2017. The count provided by the Criminal Justice Commission in the 2018 report ended about the time 2018 began. Representative Carpenter suggested Mr. Skidmore jump forward several slides to address Representative Knopp's question. Mr. Skidmore indicated that crime rates would be addressed further later in the presentation. He wanted to cover a couple of additional items prior to looking at crime rates. Mr. Skidmore scrolled to slide 5: Goal: Reduce Recidivism." The second goal of the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission was to reduce the recidivism rate in Alaska. He read directly from the slide: "The state's growing prison population and increased corrections spending, however, had not produced commensurate improvements in public safety outcomes: nearly two out of every three people released from Alaska prisons returned within three years." Mr. Skidmore summarized that Alaska had a problem with recidivism, and it was not getting any better. During the criminal justice reform debate for SB 91 Alaska's recidivism rate was one of the worst rates in the country. It was suggested that the state could do better with criminal justice reform. The recidivism rate had gone unchanged for decades, and without enacting reforms it was thought the recidivism rate could not go down. 1:51:26 PM Mr. Skidmore advanced to slide 6: Recidivism: National Perspective." The special report referred to on the slide came from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. He relayed that it was a special report that followed up on a look at recidivism nationwide that had been conducted for about 9 years. He indicated that 2014 was the last year in which people were tracked, but the report was not released until May 2018. Mr. Skidmore continued to slide 7: "States included in the BJS recidivism study of prisoners released in 2005." The report looked at 30 different states in which prisoners were released in 2005 and followed for 9 years. Alaska was one of the 30 states that were followed. He wanted to draw the members attention to Alaska, Utah, Oregon, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Dakota. He highlighted these states because in looking at the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission's report (Justice Reinvestment, published in December 2015) on page 5 it indicated that there were many other states that had adopted policies to reign in the size and cost of their corrections spending through justice reinvestment strategy. They named a number of states that Alaska should look at and model itself after including Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Utah. He noted that many of the states mentioned were also involved in the national recidivism study. It was a significant point which he would return to later in his presentation. Mr. Skidmore explained slide 8: "What is Recidivism." He mentioned the importance of having a common definition of recidivism so that the same thing was being measured. He read the list: Measuring recidivism Recidivism measures require three characteristics: • a starting event, such as a release from prison; • a measure of failure following the starting event, such as a subsequent arrest, conviction, or return to prison; • an observation or follow-up period that generally extends from the date of the starting event to a predefined end date (e.g., 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, or 9 years). 1:54:30 PM Mr. Skidmore continued to slide 9: "National Recidivism": • The 401,288 state prisoners released in 2005 had an estimated 1,994,000 arrests during the 9-year period - an average of 5 arrests per released prisoner. • An estimated 68% of released prisoners were arrested within 3 years, 79% within 6 years, and 83% within 9 years. • More than three-quarters (77%) of released drug offenders were arrested for a non-drug crime within 9 years. Mr. Skidmore concluded that recidivism was associated with certain individuals. Alaska's recidivism rate was around two-thirds which was not good but on par with the national average. He also noted that the further out in the timeline, the more people were recidivating. He also pointed out that within the study of about 400,000 people more than three-quarters or 77 percent of released drug offenders were rearrested within a 9-year period for non-drug crimes. He believed the legislature had heard from prosecutors and law enforcement that individuals suffering from substance abuse ended up being the same people who contributed to other crimes in the state such as property crimes to support their habit. Mr. Skidmore moved to the next portion of his presentation looking at Alaska's Recidivism and Reentry. He was presenting slides the committee had already seen from a meeting on February 5, 2019 by DOC. He took the slides directly from that presentation. Mr. Skidmore turned to the definition of recidivism on slide 11: "Recidivism": An offender who is re-incarcerated within three years of release as a result of: • Parole or probation violations • New felony crime • New misdemeanor crime Mr. Skidmore talked about the findings on slide 12: "Alaska Recidivism Rates." In 2011 there was a 67.47 percent recidivism rate, just under the national average of 68 percent. Alaska was told, as it engaged in criminal justice reform, that with its reform efforts it would not be able to bring down its recidivism rates. It was suggested that reform efforts were needed to bring down recidivism rates. In 2012, recidivism rates dropped slightly but crept back up in 2013. He continued that in 2014 it dropped again and in 2015 it dropped all the way down to just over 61 percent. He reminded members that SB 91 was implemented in 2016. He concluded that Alaska's recidivism rate and prison population were declining prior to SB 91. 1:59:16 PM Mr. Skidmore detailed slide 13: "Recidivism - By Offense." He reported that within the first 6 months, offenders returned to incarceration because of probation and parole violations. He suggested focusing on the area of probation and parole violations to reduce recidivism. Offenders also committed felonies and misdemeanors within the first 6 months of release. At the 3-year mark of being released, about 50 percent of offenders committed new crimes. Probation and Parole also played a significant role. Mr. Skidmore scrolled to slide 14: "Recidivism - New Crimes." In 2011, the recidivism rate for new crimes was about 40 percent. By 2015, prior to the implementation of criminal justice reform, the rate had dropped to 32 percent for new crimes. Co-Chair Wilson asked Mr. Skidmore to review a technical violation of probation and parole. Mr. Skidmore responded by giving examples of violations of probation and parole. If a person violated any of their conditions of probation or parole, other than committing another crime, it was considered a technical violation. Vice-Chair Ortiz noted Mr. Skidmore had mentioned the 58 percent figure resulting from probation and parole violations. He asked how the state could focus on reducing probation and parole violations. Mr. Skidmore responded that if the state wanted to bring down its recidivism rate, it should focus on what happened to people when they committed probation or parole violations. He suggested looking at what other sanctions could be taken other than returning a person to prison. Perhaps certain programs or other reentry plans could be considered that might reduce the recidivism rate. He did not have a specific example. 2:03:08 PM Mr. Skidmore explained slide 15: "Alaska's Recidivism Before SB 91." He suggested that between 2011 to 2015 Alaska's recidivism rate declined 6 percent. He believed the state could do better. Although the state had hovered around the same place for over 2 decades and had been told it could not do anything without reforms, it had managed to drop its number anyway. Alaska had also been told there were other states in the country that were doing far better. Yet, by 2015, Alaska was 7 percent below the national average of 2005 (the most recent average Mr. Skidmore had found). Mr. Skidmore advanced to slide 16: "All Violent Crime: All Property Crime." He thought the slide would address some of Representative Knopp's question regarding crime rates. He reminded members of the states he had listed previously: Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, and Utah. The slide contained information taken from the FBI's uniform crime report data for various states including Alaska, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, and Utah. The U.S. national average was also included. Every state listed, with the exception of Kentucky, was a state that came from the FBI report of who Alaska should compare itself with. Kentucky was added because of some of Alaska's pretrial reforms. The pretrial reforms that Alaska implemented were similar to those made by Kentucky. He noted on the topic of successes that most of what he had seen the Criminal Justice Commission report about was the prison population and the recidivism rate. The commission did not talk about the crime rate. He had heard some people say that the crime rate could be driven by many things not all of which were connected to reform. He understood the argument. However, he pointed out the paragraph below the one that highlight the 5 states on page 5 of the report from December 2015. He read from the page: "In 2011, for example, policy makers in Georgia faced a projected 8 percent increase in the prison population over the next 5 years at a cost of $264 million. Rather than spend additional tax dollars on prisons, Georgia's leaders looked for more cost- effective solutions. The state legislature unanimously passed a set of reforms that controlled prison growth through changes to drug and property offence statutes and improved public safety by investing in drug and mental health courts and treatment. Between 2012 and 2014, the most recent year with available crime data, the state crime rate had fallen 3 percent." Mr. Skidmore commented that when he looked at crime rates, he did not look at them simply because he thought it was the right thing to do. He thought crime rates reflected what was going on in the state. He highlighted that when the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission members considered enacting the reforms, they took into account crime rates declining in other states that had enacted criminal justice reform. It was the measure that other states had chosen to use. He noted that there was a different color line for each state with an index at the bottom of the slide. He mentioned that there was a star on each line. Each star denoted when a particular state began participating in criminal justice reform. Violent crime rates were on the top of the page and property crime rates were on the bottom of the page. In looking at the violent crime rates, they seemed to go down with a couple of exceptions. South Dakota [represented in brown] went up following its criminal justice reform in 2013. It was true that there were many factors that influenced crime rates. In South Dakota there was a significant population increase at the time which partially explained the increase. Oregon held steady. Every other state appeared to be going down except for Alaska shown in red. Mr. Skidmore drew attention to the property crime chart. He highlighted that property crimes went down with the exception of Alaska. He highlighted Georgia. He reemphasized that in both charts Alaska's crime rate went up. Mr. Skidmore commented that there were several things Alaska had done well over the previous 20 to 30 years; the crime rates had gone down. The Alaska Criminal Justice Commission stated in its 2018 report on page 40: "Research into the nationwide decline in crime rates over the last 30 years shows that between 10 percent and 25 percent of the decline in crime was attributable to the effect of increased incarceration rates." Mr. Skidmore restated that the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission reported that the nationwide data and study indicated that crime went down over the 30-year period because of getting-tough-on-crime policies. The report went on to say that the policies had diminishing returns. In other words, doubling down by increasing sentences further would not work. However, throwing out what had been done for the previous 30 years was not the right approach either. 2:11:07 PM Representative Carpenter asked what might explain an increase in violent crimes and property crimes at the same time the state was seeing a decline in prison population. Mr. Skidmore indicated he would be able to answer the representative's question in one of the following slides. Mr. Skidmore reviewed slide 17: "Comparison of PEW Reform States." The Pew Charitable Trusts' chart reflected all of the states they had worked with. He pointed out that the top of the chart showed the years in which the states participated in criminal justice reform. On the far left the reforms were broken down into several different categories. The checkmarks showed which reforms the various states engaged in. He opined that the chart was a helpful tool to compare the different reforms the state participated in. He added the colors to the chart to mirror the colors in the crime rate charts. He reviewed the different colors and the corresponding states. Alaska was represented in red. Co-Chair Wilson asked about the timeframe for each checkmark. She wondered if the Pew Charitable Trusts had further detail. Mr. Skidmore did not know how the reforms were implemented in other states. Co-Chair Wilson commented that SB 91 was implemented in phases and did not think it was phased in properly. She thought treatment had been slated further into the future than anticipated. She asked Mr. Skidmore his opinion about the way SB 91 was phased in. Mr. Skidmore clarified that he had not in any way stated that SB 91 had caused the state's problems. In his presentation, he had highlighted the goals of reform and reported that they were already being achieved before the implementation of SB 91. It was too early to report on recidivism, as no statistics were available yet. He did not have information regarding prison population but thought it could be provided by DOC. His main point was that the goals that were highlighted were being achieved prior to the implementation of SB 91. He added that after reform was implemented, Alaska's crime rates continued to climb. The reforms were intended to be implemented without having a negative impact on Alaska's crime rates. He indicated that crime rates were starting to go up prior to reform. He would discuss the reason for the upward trend shortly. The reforms did not result in crime rates leveling out or declining which was what was promised through the reform process. 2:15:04 PM Vice-Chair Ortiz returned to the two goals brought up at the beginning of the presentation. He queried if Mr. Skidmore had done any analysis to explain the state's progress prior to SB 91. He thought the stats had not been available when SB 91 was under consideration by the legislature. He asked if he was correct. Mr. Skidmore agreed that the information necessary to understand how recidivism worked at the time was incomplete. Some information was available for 2011 and 2012. However, the third year was not available but necessary for a proper analysis. He believed that if the representative were to ask DOC about the prison population presently, the department could provide the information. He was uncertain why the legislature was told that the prison population was continuing to increase through 2015 and 2016. He did not know why The Pew Charitable Trusts' slide showed the prison population going up despite the fact that it was going down. Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about the gains made in recidivism prior to SB 91. He queried if it was true that the state was putting more resources into funding for substance abuse treatment in certain years. He asked if it was the reason for the state's gains in recidivism. Mr. Skidmore did not have an answer. He thought it would be significant for any policy maker to know what was going on at the time that allowed the state to make changes. He encouraged the legislature to reach out to DOC to talk about what was going on at the time. Co-Chair Wilson reported that she was reaching out to some of the state's past commissioners. She hoped the committee would get to talk to them the following day. Representative Josephson asked about slides 6 and 7. He had been told the 2015 cohort would reflect later years - years closer to the present. He suggested that if it was true, he thought SB 91 could be a part of the reason for the decline. Mr. Skidmore responded that Representative Josephson was partially correct. He reiterated that in a previous slide it showed people reoffending, typically for probation and parole violations, within the first 6 months of release. It seemed to be supported, as SB 91 was not in effect the first 6 months of 2015. He was speaking of the calendar year for 2015. Senate Bill 91 was not implemented until about a year following the period. There were 2 years that were impacted by SB 91. However, the recidivism rate was dropping previously to that time. His point was that the state was bringing down recidivism prior to SB 91. Although the legislation might have had an influence, it was unclear how much influence it had. 2:20:09 PM Representative Josephson asked if it would have made a difference if the stakeholders supporting SB 91 had received the money they were anticipating for reentry, reform, and rehabilitation. He wondered if they had received the money. He was trying to figure out whether there was a worthy argument. Mr. Skidmore was not sure about money disbursement. He was aware that money was disbursed through SB 91 and other budget measures. He did not have any details. He reminded everyone that SB 91 was phased in beginning in 2016 with Phase 1. Phase 2 began in 2017, and Phase 3 began in 2018. He advised members to keep the phasing in mind when looking at the impacts on recidivism. Representative Josephson was trying to figure out why Alaskans had a red line so remarkably different than other states. He wondered what was going on. He thought Mr. Skidmore was saying there was anecdotal evidence that people knew they could get off. He was trying to get Mr. Skidmore's thesis as to why the red lines were different. 2:23:49 PM Mr. Skidmore commented that the differences on the slide comparing state reforms, helped to understand. He was trying to focus his presentation on HB 20 relating to drug crimes. He used food as a metaphor for Criminal Justice Reform. One of the goals of reforms was for the state to reduce the period of time people were on probation. There were a few option. First, the maximum period of probation could be reduced. Second, earned compliance credits could be implemented, allowing for a reduction in a person's probation period based on good behavior. Third, early termination of probation and parole could be recommended. He compared the state's reform system to ordering everything off the menu giving the state indigestion. Although there were sound concepts throughout SB 91, implementing them all was like ordering everything off a menu. He drew members' attention back to the provisions of HB 20. Co-Chair Wilson explained that Mr. Skidmore was likely hearing the frustration of members. While legislators wanted to ensure punishment at the proper level, they were unsure of the correct levels. She wondered how to write treatment programs into statute for those people who truly want to change their lives. She was looking for a balance. She did not think anyone should be surprised that a person getting out of prison without any reform was likely to reoffend. Mr. Skidmore replied that Co-Chair Wilson's question was the right question to ask. He would answer her question as he continued the presentation. 2:27:58 PM Mr. Skidmore returned to his presentation on slide 18: "Violent v. Non-violent Offenses." He wanted to make the distinction between a violent crime and a property crime. Currently in Alaska, violent crimes were generally considered something under Alaska Statute 11.41. The crimes included homicide, assault, stalking, kidnapping, human trafficking, sexual assault, and sexual abuse of a minor. The list was not complete but provided a sense of what was a violent crime. He continued that non-violent crimes were considered all other crimes for the purpose of crime statistics. He read the list of non-violent crimes including theft, criminal mischief (property damage), forgery, bribery, gambling, hindering prosecution, and impersonating a public servant. Mr. Skidmore turned to slide 19 and clarified that when talking about crime statistics and referring to non-violent crimes, there were other crimes listed. He read the list which included misconduct involving weapons, drug trafficking, arson, burglary, promoting contraband, rioting, sending an explicit image of a minor, misconduct involving a corpse, cruelty to animals, and sex trafficking. He noted that misconduct involving weapons and drug trafficking were substantially related to violent crimes. He encouraged the legislature to ask the appropriate questions so that members knew what people were referring to when they mentioned non-violent crimes. Mr. Skidmore returned to the violent crimes and property crimes slide [Note: reinserted as slide 20]. He asserted that it was not possible to claim that the reform caused the increase in crime. However, when the state adjusted its criminal justice system with SB 91, it significantly impacted law enforcement and the prosecution's ability to respond to increases in crime. 2:30:54 PM Mr. Skidmore concluded his presentation with slide 21: "Why did Crime Rise Before SB 91?" He explained there were many factors that influenced Alaska's crime rates. However, the opioid crisis was one of the largest influences. He reported that overdose deaths from opioids had dramatically increased from 2013 to 2017. The chart on the right of the slide showed hospital care associated with opioids. He highlighted that inpatient treatment between 2016 and 2017 decreased. The number of people receiving in-patient treatment for substance abuse, specifically, opioids, went down. He spoke to Representative Josephson's comment, money was spent for additional treatment. As a prosecutor, he did not want to put someone with a drug addiction in jail. He would rather see them get into treatment. He agreed that treatment was the proper place for someone with an addiction, but treatment numbers declined. Conversely, emergency care skyrocketed. House Bill 20 returned drug provisions to where they were prior to SB 91. He elaborated that possession of a controlled substance went from a misdemeanor with no jail time for the first 2 offences to a felony crime. Mr. Skidmore conveyed that there were many good aspects of SB 91 including a Suspended Entry of Judgment (SEJ). The Suspended Entry of Judgement was a new tool. There had been something on the state's books called a Suspended Imposition of Sentence (SIS) that was supposed to allow prosecutors to address those first-time offenders or individuals that they did not think needed to end up with a conviction on their record. It suspended the imposition of sentence, but it still left the person saddled with a felony conviction. There were collateral consequences to a felony conviction. The state needed to find a way to avoid the felony conviction, which the SEJ does. He explained that when someone was charged with a crime, such as a possessory drug crime, and the prosecution believed treatment was a better option than jail, the person would be advised to plead guilty to the crime but would not be found guilty. The judgement would not be entered. The person would be placed under conditions including going to treatment. If a person met the conditions by going to treatment, their case would be dismissed. The conviction would not be entered, and the person would not experience the collateral consequences associated with a conviction. The Suspended Entry of Judgement was a new and positive tool. It could be very helpful for people. He commented that there had to be an incentive to get people to attend residential treatment from 30 to 180 days. He suggested that without an appropriate incentive, treatment was not an attractive option. House Bill 20 incentivized in-patient treatment. It would allow the criminal justice system to play a role in helping combat the drug crisis. The bill would also return the ability to aggressively go after individuals dealing poison to Alaska's citizens. Under current law, the Class A felony for drug trafficking was eliminated and the penalties for drug trafficking were reduced from A to B and B to C. House Bill 20 had provisions that changed the drug laws. He implored the legislature to return tools to attorneys and law enforcement. 2:38:16 PM Vice-Chair Johnston asked about the final slide. She asked if the emergency numbers applied to the total population of the state. Mr. Skidmore responded that figure 36 came from the Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Public Health. Epidemiology indicated that the slide reflected the rate of hospital care, specifically in-patient treatment, associated with opioids. Vice-Chair Johnston wanted to find out what was considered in-patient treatment. It would be interesting to know the wait time statistics in getting into treatment and the number of positions available in the state for treatment. She was not referring to a 3-day in-patient treatment. Co-Chair Wilson thought she had requested the information from DOC. She would get back to the committee. Representative Josephson relayed that an SEJ had to be agreed to by all parties. He wondered how all parties could be assured that prosecutors would follow through with an SEJ agreement. He queried whether additional language was needed regarding treatment if a person was charged with misconduct involving a controlled substance in the fourth degree. Mr. Skidmore thought Representative Josephson was asking what sort of guarantees were available that prosecutors would want to use an SEJ. Representative Josephson responded, "Yes." Mr. Skidmore responded that the prosecutors that worked in Alaska wanted to see the state improve. Folks that worked for him across the state did it because they wanted to make Alaska a better place - they did not get paid proportionate to their efforts. Prosecutors understood the need for treatment in order to properly address the opioid crisis and drug abuse. He relayed he would aggressively use the SEJ for drug possession if it was returned to a Class C felony. He wanted to see people in treatment. He had the ability to direct the people working for him that SEJs would be used. The tool would be applied to a significant portion of related cases. 2:43:26 PM Vice-Chair Ortiz referred to slide 16. He wondered if the comparable states were also involved with criminal justice reform. He thought the difference was the level of reform, which he suspected was less than the reform in Alaska through SB 91. Mr. Skidmore replied that the states were chosen because they were specifically called out by the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission's report, Justice Reinvestment, in December 2015. Every state, with the exception of Kentucky, was listed on page 5 of the report and were states Alaska could look to for comparison. Alaska's pre-trial reforms were modeled after Kentucky, which was the reason for its inclusion. The included states were chosen because they had engaged in reforms that Alaska was considering. He included the chart from Pew because the reform categories and the states that had engaged in reform were listed. He could not provide specifics but would be undertaking an intensive research project at a later time. Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if it was safe to say that the reforms made in the states Alaska was comparing itself to were less broad-based. He suggested Alaska ordered everything off the menu unlike the other states. Mr. Skidmore responded, "That's correct." He elaborated that a person from Texas that told him Alaska should be putting people in jail that it was afraid of rather than mad at. He drew attention to the blue box on slide 16. 2:45:44 PM Vice-Chair Ortiz queried whether Mr. Skidmore had studied economics. He suggested that a certain result would happen to the demand when the price increased for a certain item. However, he suggested many things changed in the marketplace. He wondered if Mr. Skidmore experienced frustration with determining what direction the state should take when looking at available data in the area of criminal reform. Mr. Skidmore had not studied economics but was familiar with the principle Representative Ortiz described. He agreed with the representative 100 percent. He reported that it was very difficult, when conducting a study or experiment, to hold everything equal other than what was being studied. In other words, it was very difficult to isolate one change. He agreed that it played havoc with the state's ability to understand what has happened in the state's criminal justice system. However, simultaneously, science was not his forte'. He indicated that SB 91 made 96 changes that went into effect simultaneously. It made it difficult to discuss the impacts of any one of those changes. Representative Carpenter recalled that there was a national discussion about the opioid crisis beginning in 2013 or 2014. He suggested it was not just Alaska that was affected. Mr. Skidmore replied, "That's correct." Representative Carpenter returned to the crime rate slide. He pointed out that from 2013 to 2017 there was an opioid epidemic not just in Alaska but in the nation. However, Alaska was the only state that had an anomaly in the trend of the crime rate. He asked if other states were dealing with the epidemic in a different way or whether there was another factor that had not been discussed. He asked Mr. Skidmore to comment. Mr. Skidmore did not have an answer to Representative Carpenter's question. He offered that there was a problem with the opioid epidemic which had a dramatic impact on Alaska. He could not confirm whether the opioid crisis was the only thing that affected Alaska's crime rates. There were clearly other factors that had an impact. He focused on drugs because they were the focus of HB 20. At the time, when Alaska was experiencing an increase in its crime rate, the state chose to engage in criminal justice reform dramatically shifting how Alaska addressed opioids. He did not believe the shift turned out in the state's favor. He was laying out the case for the state to go back to certain drug laws with some changes. The state needed some of its previous tools back. Representative Josephson believed Mr. Skidmore when he stated the SEJ would be used liberally. He wanted to see where the SEJ would be paid for in the fiscal notes. 2:52:12 PM Co-Chair Wilson responded that the request would be added. Representative Knopp understood numbers as opposed to percentages, and he did not like surveys with "per capita" because of Alaska's location. He asked how to take a state like Alaska with its small population and compare it to other states. He suggested using real numbers for comparison. He did not believe the comparison was accurate. He asked Mr. Skidmore to comment. He provided an example. He was unclear as to the basis of the studies. Mr. Skidmore agreed about the importance of understanding all of the ingredients in the charts. He thought Representative Knopp could have access to the underlying numbers. He suggested that when it came to comparing Alaska to other states such as Texas, Oregon, or Utah, statisticians used 100,000. The raw numbers could be provided. The slide containing the crime rates contained actual numbers. The recidivism numbers could be obtained through DOC. Co-Chair Wilson thanked Mr. Skidmore for his presentation and indicated the committee would transition to the next bill, HB 96. 2:55:39 PM At EASE 2:57:23 PM RECONVENED